Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add stefaniuk/loadout --skill spec-to-code-compliancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/spec-to-code-compliance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/spec-to-code-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/spec-to-code-compliance/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/spec-to-code-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/spec-to-code-compliance.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00056 | $0.01628 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00651 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00326 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00163 |
Grade A, and why
spec-to-code-compliance scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec-to-Code Compliance
Two artifacts disagree, and the job is to find where. The documentation says what the system does; the code decides what it actually does. Every gap between them is either a bug or a documentation fix, and which one it is is the finding.
When to Use
You have both documentation describing intended behavior and the code that should implement it. A whitepaper against a protocol, a design note against a service, a README's stated guarantees against the functions behind them.
Most useful when the document is authoritative — something a client wrote, published, or is audited against — because then a divergence is a defect rather than stale prose.
When NOT to Use
Not for code with no documentation of intended behavior. There is nothing to check against, and a requirement
inferred from the code is checked against itself. Build the system model first with audit-context-building.
Not for finding bugs in general. This finds one class: where the code and the document disagree. A bug both artifacts are silent about is out of scope, and a bug the document endorses is a finding against the document.
Not for writing or improving documentation, though it produces the list of what needs fixing.
Do not check requirements in this context
Run /spec-to-code-compliance:spec-compliance <path>. The slash command takes a path; to name the
specification directly or widen the fan-out, ask for the run with those values — "run spec-compliance on
./contracts against SPEC.md, checking 20 requirements" — and they reach the script as {path, spec, limit}.
Typing the object literally after the slash command does not work; it arrives as a string and becomes the path.
It finds the documents, splits them into individually checkable requirements, gives each requirement its own
agent to hunt the code with, has independent agents try to refute every divergence before it is reported, and
writes spec-compliance/REPORT.md plus one file per requirement under spec-compliance/requirements/. Only
compact records come back here.
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 116 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A eb0d91b50a9c
spec-to-code-compliance is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,628 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.
spec-kitty-implement-review
Orchestrate the implement-review loop for Spec Kitty work packages using any configured agent. Covers agent dispatch, state transitions, rejection cycles, arbiter escalation, and dependency-aware sequencing across all 13 supported coding agents. Triggers: "implement and review WPs", "run the implement-review loop"…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
mcp-server-review
Review a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation against the 2026-07-28 protocol revision, which removed the initialize handshake and Mcp-Session-Id and made the protocol stateless. Use when the user asks to review, audit, upgrade or migrate an MCP server, asks whether their MCP server is spec compliant…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…